log inhelp

Get your own free workspace
View
 

Levels of Inquiry: Summary of Research

Page history last edited by Catina Chapman 3 years, 4 months ago

Levels of Inquiry:Working toward student independence

             Several sources suggest that there are gradations of inquiry.  They propose that teachers guide their students through the inquiry process throughout the school year, working toward greater student autonomy as the year progresses.  The National Science Education Standards allude to this idea when they call for opportunities for “full and partial inquiries” (NRC, 1996, p. 143).  Below are three different ideas of levels of inquiry, from three different sources.  Below that is the reference list from my literature review. 

 

Llewellyn (2002)

 Bell, Smetana, and Binns (2005) Eick, Meadows, and Balkcom (2005)  

Demonstration:

teacher

  • poses question
  • plans procedures
  • formulates results 

Confirmation stage:

  • students are given the question, methods and solution. 
  • students have generally already learned about the phenomena they are testing from their textbooks and teachers; the purpose of the activity is to prove what they already “know”.

Level one involves the development of the first two essential features:

  • engaging in scientifically oriented questions
  • giving priority to evidence in responding to questions
  
NOTE: Both believe that students can perform inquiry work with provided data instead of gathering it themselves, as long as they truly engage in the question and consider the evidence.  Eick, Meadows, and Balkcom (2005) cite the Internet as a great source for accurate real time data.

Activity:

teacher

  • poses question,
  • plans procedures

 

students

  • formulate  results

Structured inquiry:

teacher

  • provides question and methods,

students

  • watch the solution before they read about the concept
 Level two could incorporate teacher demonstrations, provided that students state their predictions, observe the demonstration, then explain (P-O-E method).  Students would record that data in this type of activity.  Then, by formulating explanations from evidence, students add an essential feature of inquiry.  The authors note that teachers should guide students to arrive at the reason, then explicitly acknowledge that reason to the students.   

teacher-initiated inquiries:

teacher

  • poses question

students

  • plan the procedure
  • formulate results

guided inquiry activities: 

 

teacher

  • poses question

students

  • design the procedure
  • determine the results
 Level three incorporates “student-led extensions” (p.52), where students connecting explanations to scientific knowledge—which could be any reliable source, including their textbook. After seeing what the experts say, students design and test a new hypothesis, then report their findings.  

student-initiated inquiry

students:

  • begin
  • direct
  • finish the process all by themselves. 

Open inquiry: 

 

students do the whole process alone.  These type of activities are often seen in science fairs.

 Level four incorporates all essential features including the last: communicating and justifying explanations.  Students basically go through the whole process independently, then interpret their results and synthesize them with present literature for a presentation.  These authors again cite the science fair as the common place for presentations, and note that disappointing projects may result from lack of guided experience with inquiry.   

 

 

Literature on Inquiry and Use of Sensors:

  • Adams, D.D., and Shrum, J.W.  (1990). The effects of microcomputer-based laboratory exercises on the acquisition of line graph construction and interpretation sills by high school biology students.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 777-787.
  • Bell, R.L., Smetana, L., and Binns, I. (2005).  Simplifiying inquiry instruction: assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities.  The Science Teacher, 72(7). 30-33.
  • Crawford, B.A. (2000).  Embracing the essence of inquiry: new roles for science teachers.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
  • Echevarria, M.  (2003).  Anomolies as a catalyst for middle school students’ knowledge construction and scientific reasoning during science inquiry.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 357-374.
  • Eick, C., Meadows, L., and Balkcom, R. (2005).  Breaking into inquiry: scaffolding supports beginning efforts to implement inquiry in the classroom.  The Science Teacher, 72(7), 49-53.
  • Flick, L.B., and Lederman, N.G. (2004).  Scientific inquiry and nature of science: implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education.  The Netherlands: Klower Academic Publishers. 
  • Furtak, E.M.  (2006).  The problem with answers: an exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching.  Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.
  • Herron, M.D.  (1971).  The nature of scientific enquiry.  School Review, 79(2), 171-212.
  • Hinman, R.L.  (1998).  Content and science inquiry.  The Science Teacher, 65(7), 25-27.
  • Hisim, N. (2005).  Technology in the lab: part II: practical suggestions for using probeware in the science classroom.  The Science Teacher, 72(7), 38-41.
  • Keys, C.W., and Kennedy, V. (1999).  Undertanding inquiry science teaching in context: a case study of an elementary teacher. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(4), 315-333).
  • Kim, H. and Song, J. (2006).  The features of peer argumentation in middle school students’ scientific inquiry.  Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-233.
  • Llewellyn, D.  (2002).  Inquire within: implementing inquiry-based science standards.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
  • Linn, M.C., Layman, J.W., and Nachmias, R.  (1987).  Cognitive consequences of microcomputer-based laboratories: graphing skills development.  Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12(3), 244-253.
  • Lynch, S., Taymans, J., Watson, W.A., Ochsendorf, R.J., Pyke, C., and Szesze, M.J.  (2007).  Effectiveness of a highly rated science curriculum unit for students with disabilities in general education classrooms.  Exceptional Children, 73(2), 202-223.
  • Miller, M.  (2005).  Technology in the lab: part I: what research says about using probeware in the science classroom.  The Science Teacher, 72 (7), 34-37.
  • National Research Council (NRC).  (1996).  National Science Education Standards.  Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 
  • National Science Foundation. (1999) Inquiry: thoughts, views and strategies for the K-5 classroom. In Foundations series (vol. 2). Arlington, VA:NSF
  • Salomon, G., Perkins, D.N., and Globerson, T. (1991).  Partners in cognition: extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies.  Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
  • Thornton, R.K., and Sokoloff, D.R. (1990).  Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58(9), 858-867.
  • Roschelle, J.M., Pea, R.D., Hoadley, C.M., Gordin, D.N., and Means, B.M. (2000).  Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies.  The Future of Children, 10(2), 76-101.

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.

PDF version